August 20, 2014

Still, No Actual Science Here

And by "here" of course I mean the editorial page of the Tribune-Review.

Take a look at this warning about some upcoming legislation. I want to jump all the way to the bottom to the "science" that supports the whole argument:

As Benjamin Zycher of the American Enterprise Institute points out, atmospheric and surface warming began in the late 1970s and ended in the mid-to-late 1990s. In effect, the “Great Carbon Chase” is a nonstarter.

So who's this Benjamin Zycher of AEI? (Let's not forget that AEI is itself a beneficiary of millions of Scaife money.) Is he a climate scientist?

With respect to the explicit assumption about the "warming of our planet": The most recent warming period ended 15or more years ago.

Ah, that argument. The warming ended in the late 90s. The "link" above is actually two links. One leading to an actual scientist (Roy Spencer, Ph.D.) and the other leading to another non-scientist (Christopher Monckton) who is more or less a quack.

So let's look at the scientist. He actually gets his own page at the Skeptical Science website. (Actually, it's a page devoted to him, titled "Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer). And here's how Skeptical Science debunks Spencer's "no warming in x number of years" argument. I wrote only yesterday about how it's still warming outside (FYI - that's where the science points)

It's the same old selective evidence fallacy that's been used countless times before.

7 comments:

(Hockey Stick) Mann starts his history lesson with Paul Erlich, author of The Population Bomb — whom I wrote about in June. Mann calls Erlich’s book “a foundational text in the environmental movement” — yet, he points out that Erlich’s “predictions didn’t pan out.” Instead of discrediting Erlich, his work, somehow, gave birth to what Mann calls “environmental politics.” Continuing, Mann asserts that Earth Day “became an opportunity to denounce capitalist greed.”

At that point, I'd imagine that It would be most wise to poll the vast majority of economists to determine whether the heart surgeons conclusions on economics were supported. Unless of course you were of the belief that all economists were involved in a great conspiracy aimed solely at perpetuating their unsubstantiated field of study.